essay about gmo food

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Genetically Modified Foods (GMO), Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 635

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Whether individuals are okay with it or not, we live in a world today where genetically modified foods (GMOs) are everywhere. What is meant by this is that unless an individual only eats organic foods day in and day out, he or she is invariably putting GMOs into his or her mouth every day. After becoming cognizant of this actuality, individuals often worry that they might not be buying the correct and safest products for their families. Therefore, it is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. (WebMD)

To start off, individuals must come to grasps that at this time and age, it would be increasingly difficult to live a life eating only foods that do not contain GMOs. While this may seem alarming to some, there must be room for clarification as to what exactly are the purposes for GMOs. Often times, food is genetically modified for simple reasons, such as to grow grapes without seeds inside of them. However, other times, modifications are much more drastic, such as changing the color or the taste of a specific pepper. What this means is that scientists are able to acquire a desired taste by combining science with nature.

Despite the fact that there have been a variety of tests by the Food Administration in order to ensure that the food that farmers are growing is safe, there have been numerous reports where the food has not been reported in pristine condition. In general, it has been found that the consumption of a variety of foods with GMOs have been proven to increase the likelihood of an individual developing a food-based allergy. While this is not something grave, it is certainly something that should be taken a look at, given that a food that is being produced deliberately directly affects someone’s personal life. (“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” )

Genetically modified foods should not be regarded as dangerous, for individuals would never produce something that puts someone else’s life at risk. However, one should be cautious about what she decides to consume because of the fact that one does not always know what is inside the food that is being consumed.

A setback about producing GMOs is the fact that they do not have much economic value. This is due to the manner in which GMOs take just as long to grow as normal fruits and vegetables, amongst other foods. What this means is that there is no increase in production, so farmers do not have the ability to distribute their merchandise at faster pace. Perhaps the only advantage that GMOs would have within a market is that fact that they would prove to be great competition against other distributors. Other than that, however, GMOs could prove to be incredibly unprofitable.

An upside to GMOs is that often times, they contain more nutrients than the ordinary, unmodified product. This happens because when the fruits and/or vegetables are being modified, new nutrients must be injected into the foods in order to ensure that the foods will indeed be modified.

It is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. Because of the fact that not many people are aware of what exactly they are putting into their mouths, it is the farmer’s and distributor’s responsibility that they are able to provide individuals with the best product that is available. One’s safety should never be put at risk just so that a profit can be made from selling something that will only make individuals sick. Therefore, individuals should be more wary of what they put into their mouths and consume.

Works Cited

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.”  HRF . HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 July 2015.

WebMD. “The Truth About GMOs: Are They Safe? What Do We Know?”  WebMD . WebMD, n.d. Web. 2 July 2015.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

11 Rules for Safe Handling of Hazardous Materials, Essay Example

Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food Research Paper

Works cited.

It has been said that if man learned how to be content then mankind would still be in living in caves, on trees or in crude houses made of mud and sticks. There would be no technological advances beyond the discovery of fire. Everyone will be happy with a nomadic existence hunting and gathering food. But this is not the case. Human beings will always try to find a better way to live, to dress, drink and to eat. One of the most amazing discoveries in modern history is the ability to genetically alter food.

This means increase in yield, vitamin-enriched foods, drought and insect-resistant plants as well as sturdier animals for consumption. Although this type of technology is beneficial to ensure food security there are those who are not convinced that the rewards outweigh the risks. This study will take a closer look at genetically modified foods its benefits as well the risks and involved and how people and governments should react to these issues.

In a nutshell, genetically modified (GM) food “consists of plants and animals whose genes have been altered” (Freedman, 2009, p4). The original researchers who tackled the creation of GM were motivated by a common goal, to develop crops that are able to produce higher yields in order to solve world hunger (Freedman, 2009, p.4). Later on it included the modification of animal genes to have the same result and it is to ensure food security.

Before going any further it is important to point out that at the core of GM is modern biotechnology. This will help clarify that GMs are not a byproduct of conventional techniques such as breeding and selection. In order to have a clear picture of what is required to produce GMs one needs to understand the standard definition of biotechnology in relation to GMs and according to Codex Alimentarius Commission which was adapted from the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, modern biotechnology is defined as:

the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic aid into cells or organelles; or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection (WHO, 2005, p.2).

The capability to produce the desired traits is nothing new to farmers and breeders of animals. According to scientists, “Historically, farmers bred plants and animals for thousands of years to produce the desired traits … they produced dogs ranging from poodles to Great Danes, and roses from sweet-smelling miniatures to today’s long-lasting, but scent-free reds” (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

It is the use of selective breeding that allowed for the creation of wide varieties of plants and animals, however, “the process depended on nature to produce the desired gene” (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). The only thing that humans did was to mate invidual animals and cross-polinate plants that carried the particular gene that they had identified beforehand in order for the desired characteristic to become common or more pronounced (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

In other words more deliberate human interference is the key feature of biotechnology and genetically engineered food. The specific action is the recombination of DNA, injection of nucleic acid into cells and even fusion of cells. The trigger mechanism is the DNA because it contains genetic material. The genetic material in turn commands the cells to produce cells with a set of characteristics. Thus, the recombination of DNA and even the injection of nucleic acid into cells can easily alter the normal mode of cell reproduction.

This is the reason why biotechnologists working to create GMs are able to produce plants and animals with special characteristics that are absent in normal plants and animals that did not have recombinant DNA or other foreign genetic material in their system.

For instance a normal tomato plant can only produce a certain number of fruits. Now, a new technology will enable farmers to double the yield of each tomato plant but there is only one problem a normal tomato plant cannot handle the added weight. This is where genetic engineering comes in, scientists can recombine the DNA of a tomato and tougher more sinewy plant and as a result the genetically engineered tomato plant will develop strong stems that can now handle the added weight of a double yield.

The benefits of GMs are numerous and easily bolster the argument that GMs are needed to feed an overpopulated planet. This is because GMs are said to produce more nutritious and tastier food (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). Aside from that plants that went through genetic engineering process are disease and drought resistant and at the same time said to require fewer resources such as water and fertilizer (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

In addition genetically modified plants and animals are said to be fast growing, thus significantly increasing food supply as well as increase the shelf life of the foodstuff (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). At first glance it seems that GMs is the answer to the farmer’s and consumer’s prayers.

GM crops are no only fast growing there is also a significant increase in “per-acre yield and at the same time, reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides” (Carroll & Bucholtz, 2009, p.840). The main problem of most farmers is low yield and the reduction of the same because of pests. The double impact of increased yield and less use of pest control chemicals will only mean one thing and that would be increased revenue for the farmers while low cost of food commodities for the consumers.

The proven success of GMs is perhaps the reason why GM crops are grown in every continent except in Antarctica (Freedman, 2009, p.4). In South America GM crops can be found in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Chile, and Honduras (Freedman, 2009, p.4).

In Europe, GM crops are planted in France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Romania, while in Asia GMs are grown in India, China and the Philippines (Freedman, 2009, p. 4). However, there are those who are voicing their concerns regarding how scientists are interfering with natural processes and they fear the consequences.

Although it is a well-documented fact that GMs help solve many of the problems common to farming and food production it cannot be denied that there is great potential for problems to occur.

The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organisation was able to express the concern succinctly in the following statement “Introduction of a transgene into a recipient organism is not a precisely controlled process, and can result in a variety of outcomes with regard to integration, expression and stability of the transgene in the host (WHO, 2005, p.11). Since this technology is relatively new there is no way of knowing the long-term effects or even the impact of recent breakthroughs.

Governments and respective departments handling the safety assessment of GMs consistently defend the use of GMs because these are deemed safe by studies made concerning genetically modified foods (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840). But those who are not in favour of GMs that governments used data coming from company-sponsored studies and therefore considered as unreliable (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840).

Critics are saying that there is the possibility of altering the toxicity of plants because of the insertion of a foreign gene (Parekh, 2004, p.299). This is because the introduction of new genes “may increase or decrease the expression of the existing proteins or enzymes, which in turn results in the change of other substances in plants” (Parekh, 2004, p.300). There is also concern with regards to the potential human-health effects from horizontal gene transfer (WHO, 2005, p.15).

With regards to toxicity and other potential direct effect on human health experts are saying that the potential direct health effects of GM foods ‘are generally comparable to the known risks associated with conventional foods” (WHO, 2005, p.13). This means that there is no significant difference when it comes to problems encountered while consuming GMs and when consuming conventional foods.

With regards to the fear of the possible detrimental effects from horizontal gene transfer this is the testimony of global watchdogs “The FAO/WHO expert panels concluded that horizontal gene transfer is a rare event” (WHO, 2005, p.15).

However, critics are quick with their rebuttals and they asked if there are long term tests conducted to examine environmental impact more thoroughly and they added if these experts are already aware of the effect of GM food as it moves through the food chain (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840). The debate continues.

One of the primary concerns is the creation of GMs that can cause food allergies for people who were previously not allergic to this type of food. This means that because of an unintended effect the genetic engineering of crop has created a new variant that produces an allergen.

This principle was in full display when a genetically modified soybean suddenly contained an allergen when in conventional soybean this type of allergen was non-existent (Brown, 2005, p.17). It was an American company, the Pioneer Hi-Bred International that attempted to develop a line of GM soybean that was supposed to produce a methionine-rich protein courtesy of a gene taken from Brazil nuts (Parekh, 2004, p.304).

At that time it was common knowledge that there are people who are allergic to Brazil nuts but no one can pinpoint what gene was causing this allergic reaction. Using blood and skin-prick tests the researchers from Pioneer Hi-Bred discovered that some of their subjects were allergic to the GM soybean. This may strengthen the case of those who are not in favour of GMs but there is an explanation for this problem.

It has to be pointed out that major food allergens are proteins that are “derived from eggs, fish, milk, peanuts, shellfish, including crustaceans and molluscs such as clams, mussels and oysters” (WHO, 2005, p.16). In the previously mentioned genetically modified soybean it was discovered that it contained a gene encoding a known allergen, this gene is known as the 2S-Albumin (WHO, 2005, p.16).

However, this information was revealed during the assessment and testing phase and so the said GM soybean was never released to the market (Brown, 2009, p.17). But this did not dampen the enthusiasm of the opponents of genetically modified foods.

As a consequence of these fears and uncertainties, “Many countries have since established specific premarket regulatory systems requiring the rigorous assessment of GMOs and GM foods before their release into the environment and/or use in the food supply” (WHO, 2005, p.11).

The problem encountered by Pioneer Hi-Bred must be used as some form of case study so that regulatory bodies and other government agencies in-charge with food safety will be made aware to scrutinize the link between crops that are modified using gene encoding proteins and the type of proteins that trigger an allergic reaction.

In this manner genetic engineers and biotechnology experts will make it part of their standard operating procedure to carefully analyse and then identify the gene that encode a characteristic that in turn will heighten the toxicity or alter the impact of GM crop.

The risk and benefits of GMs were clearly outlined in the preceding discussion. Food security is the number one problem in many parts of the world. Hunger is a problem that can no longer be ignored and based on scientific evidence there is no better solution than to use GMs.

But the problem with GMs is easy to understand and it is link to the radical improvement in the field of biotechnology and the relatively new technology related to genetic modification of plants and animals that there is not enough data that will enable scientists to predict the long-term effects.

Without a doubt GMs are already a major part of agriculture and food security. It is impossible to totally eradicate the use of biotechnology to increase food production and enhance the qualities of crops, poultry and livestock.

However, it is prudent to slow down the process until scientists are able to determine the future impact of GMs and how to safeguard the general public from the risks inherent in genetic modification. One of the best ways to ensure the safety of the general public is to create a system that will scrutinise a product or GM before it will be released to the market.

Brown, Judith. Nutrition Now . London: Thomson Learning, 2005.

Carroll, Archie & Ann Buchholtz. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management . OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009.

Freedman, Jeri. Genetically Modified Food: How Biotechnology is Changing What we Eat . New York: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2009.

MedlinePlus. Genetically Engineered Foods. U.S. National Library of Medicine . 15 Nov. 2010. Web. < https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm >.

Parekh, Sarad. The GMO Handbook: Genetically Modified Animals, Microbes and Plants in Biotechnology . New Jersey: Humana Press, 2004.

World Health Organisation (WHO). Modern food biotechnology, human health and development An evidence-based study. Food Safety Department, WHO . 1 June 2005. Web. < https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf >.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 7). Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-food/

"Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food." IvyPanda , 7 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-food/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food'. 7 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food." March 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-food/.

1. IvyPanda . "Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food." March 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-food/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Overview on the Effects of Genetically Modified Food." March 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-food/.

• Soybean and Deforestation in the United States
• Soybean: Physiological Traits, Management, Main Disease
• Genetically Modified Foods: Substantial Equivalence
• A Report on Commodity Markets of Soybeans
• Will Genetically Modified Foods Doom Us All?
• Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?
• The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment
• Tomato Nutrition Advantages and Disadvantages
• Genetically Modified Corn in the United States of America
• Consumer Judgment on Genetically Modified Foods
• Genetically Modified Foods and Environment
• Business Ethics-Labeling Genetically Modified Food
• Comparison between Mexican and Spanish Cuisines
• Mood change and impact on eating habits
• Fast Foods More Harm Than Good

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper with nature at our peril. Who is right?

By David H. Freedman

Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. “Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab,” he says. “This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with.”

Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago.”

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth,” he says, “and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant.”

So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma.

Benefits and worries

The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops “has lowered the price of food,” Zilberman says. “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

Credit: Jen Christiansen

Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.

Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries—the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina—grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states.

The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans.

In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. “In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing,” Zilberman says. “They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it.” Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for “the precautionary principle,” which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe.

But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be “proved safe.” One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it—as is the case with GM crops.

A clean record

The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.

The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.”

And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says.

Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says.

In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli –infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011.

Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.

Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view.

Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system–related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. “If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now,” McHughen says. “Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment.”

Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.”

Persistent doubts

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?”

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Says Williams: “Whether it's conscious or not, it's in their interest to promote this field, and they're not objective.”

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. “If it doesn't come out the right way,” he says, “you're going to get trashed.”

There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct.

A way forward

There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” he says.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. “Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA,” he says. “They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be.”

Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. “Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market,” McHughen says. “What's going to happen if we become even more strict?”

That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages.

David H. Freedman is a journalist who has been covering science, business and technology for more than 30 years.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 June 2018

Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study

• Kai Cui 1 , 2 &
• Sharon P. Shoemaker 1  

npj Science of Food volume  2 , Article number:  10 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

92k Accesses

128 Citations

109 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Environmental biotechnology

After more than 25 years of research and development on the genetic modification of a wide range of crops for food and fodder, China has reached a decision point as to whether it should accept, reject, or go slow with the use of genetically modified (GM) technology to produce the food and feed needed to sustain its population growth and economic renaissance. Here, we report a consumer survey on GM food that includes input from all provinces in China. Chinese consumers were surveyed for their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM food. The survey resulted in 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7% of respondents having a positive, neutral, or negative view on GM food, respectively. A minority of respondents (11.7%) claimed they understood the basic principles of GM technology, while most were either “neutral” or “unfamiliar with GM technology”. Most respondents (69.3%) obtained their information on GM food through the Internet and 64.3% of respondents thought that media coverage was predominately negative on GM food. The reasons given by consumers in favor of, or against, the use of GM food, were complex, as seen by the response of 13.8% of respondents who felt GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China. China’s Ministry of Agriculture and the science community generally expressed a positive attitude toward GM food, but the percentage of respondents that trusted the government and scientists was only 11.7 and 23.2%, respectively. Post-survey comments of respondents made suggestions on how the industrialization of GM technology might impact the future of China’s food supply and value chains. Finally, the impact of emerging technologies like genome editing and genome-edited organisms (GEOs) on the GM food debate is discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Chinese public’s awareness and attitudes toward genetically modified foods with different labeling

Yawei Zhao, Haiyan Deng, … Ruifa Hu

Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge

Naoko Kato-Nitta, Tadahiko Maeda, … Masashi Tachikawa

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Michael Siegrist & Christina Hartmann

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) technology is a highly controversial topic for today’s global food consumer. The commercial development of GM crops began in 1996 with GM corn and has expanded every year with the cultivation of GM crops. In 2016, global land use for GM crops reached 185.1 million hectors. 1 Although GM foods had helped sustain the nutritional needs of human beings and farm animals and mounting evidence showed that GM foods were substantially equivalent to traditionally bred food sources, it has also sparked fierce debate about its safety. This has generated worldwide interest in finding a common and harmonious narrative to deal with new opportunities and challenges of biotechnology. A recent review of public perceptions of animal biotechnology, 2 provides an excellent context for understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and perception of GM Food in China.

China comprises 20% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s grain output, 7% of the world’s arable land, and 35% of the world’s use of agricultural chemicals. 3 Consequently, China faces risks to its food security and pollution of the environment. The government has invested heavily in research and development of technologies to improve quality and increase the output of its foodstuffs, especially grains. GM technology provides a such feasible approach 4 , 5 to realize these goals. As the complexity of the GM issue mounts, the controversy surrounding GM food has moved farther away from science. While China’s president calls for its scientists to “boldly research and innovate [and] dominate the high points of GMO techniques”, 6 the people of China are largely opposed to GMO foods, but are not sure why. 7 Thus, this nationwide survey on the current Chinese public perception of GM food should be helpful to policy-makers, technology developers, as well as to consumers.

Consumer attitudes about GM food are complex and interwoven with the consumer’s knowledge of the science, lifestyle and public perception. Since 2002, surveys have been conducted in China on public acceptance of GM food from the perspective of consumer behavior, such as intent to purchase, presence of GM markers, and sensitivity to price point 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 (Table 1 ). There has been a general lack of fundamental studies on the public’s scientific perception and policy interpretation of GM food. Moreover, the scope of previous surveys has been limited to a few of the largest cities in developed areas of China, with little or no coverage of rural areas. In all cases, the number of respondents in most of these earlier surveys was less than 1000. This study summarizes the status of GM food in China and provides the results of questionnaires that surveyed consumers from every province on their knowledge level, present attitudes, and future thoughts of GM food in China. A statistically relevant sample size of 2063 questionnaires were satisfactorily completed. The findings in this survey provide insight into Chinese consumers and offer a possible path for “smart” industrialization of GM technologies in China.

General consumer attitudes of GM food

The first six questions of the survey asked about the respondent’s background, followed by 18 questions that addressed their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM Foods. The seventh question asked, “In general, will you support GM food?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral were 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7%, respectively. These results suggest that the overall attitude of the Chinese consumer is cautious of GM food.

GM technology was first introduced in the pharmaceutical industry and then applied to agriculture. Did the public’s skepticism originate from GM food safety or GM technology itself? Question #8 was designed to address this question. “If GM technology is applied in medical area to produce medicine, such as insulin and hepatitis B vaccine, what is your opinion?” The percentage of those who supported, opposed or were neutral to GM pharmaceuticals was 46.8, 12.8, and 40.4%, respectively. Support for GM pharmaceuticals was higher than that found for GM food and again, there were many in the neutral category. This result suggests that some respondents were against GM food but not against GM technology. Still, there were 12.8% of respondents that took a negative view about GM pharmaceuticals, although they may not have known that the insulin and hepatitis B vaccine widely used today are GM-derived pharmaceuticals.

Since 2002, the year when China implemented legislation mandating the labeling of GM food products, numerous surveys in China were carried out to gain insight into the public’s attitude to GM food. The results from these early surveys were compared to the results of the present survey (Table 1 ). Significant differences were found between the surveys, likely due, in part, to differences in the number of respondents, where they resided, and when the surveys were conducted. The results were also difficult to interpret because of differences in content of each survey and in the respondents. The respondents in the surveys represented the public, media, private enterprise and government. Overall, the trends were interesting even with this inherent variability, and reflected consumer preferences about GM food. The ratio of “support” vs. “oppose” GM food was used as a measure to compare the different surveys (Table 1 ). This measure suggests an interesting trend in that the ratios before 2012 were larger than 1.0 (with one exception) and thereafter, were less than 1.0. The survey reported here gave the lowest ratio, 0.29. In summary, the initial positive attitude towards GM food in 2002 generally decreased in subsequent years.

To gain further insight into consumer attitudes toward GM food among the respondents, six factors were selected as research variables. As shown in Table 2 , respondent’s attitudes towards GM food were correlated to their age, sampling location, educational level, major in college and income. A negative attitude toward GM food was more frequent among those respondents born before 1969 (59.3%). The public-sector group from Western China reported 51.3% against GM food, compared to 29.7% from those located in the center and in northeastern China. The percentage of those respondents with college degrees who supported GM food was 9.5%, which was the lowest number relative to any other group. The percentage of respondents with a positive attitude was higher for those with a science background (14.1%) compared to those with a liberal arts background (7.5%). The percentage of respondents with a negative attitude was higher (51.6%) with those who reported an annual household income above one million Chinese Yuan (RMB), compared to those with an annual household income below 80,000 RMB (34.2%). Gender was not found to be a factor in shaping attitudes towards GM food.

We further queried the state of Chinese public opinions on GM food and determined the main reasons for the either their support (Question #9) or opposition-against (Question #10) to GM food, from what was known previously. The statistical results showed that the total number of “support” and “oppose” was 3248 and 4751, respectively. This demonstrates again that the public is cautious about GM food. The relative percentage of choice, “frequency” (defined as the number in support or against divided by the total number in the respective area) is listed in Table 3 .

GM technology is potentially a paradigm shift for farmers in developing countries and is an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, climate change, and the challenge of feeding 9.7 billion people by 2050. Some studies suggested that efforts to change consumer perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. 24 As a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S held a TV debate on December 4, 2014 on whether the world is better off with or without GM food. The discussion was whether GM food is safe, how it impacts the environment and can it improve food security). Both the positive and negative sides had experts debating for or against GM food. Among the attendees who were present, the percentages in favor or against “genetically modified food” were 32 and 30%, respectively, before the debate, but this changed to 60 and 31%, respectively, after 100 min of debating the topic. This result suggests that efforts to change public perception about GM food should address risk perception factors and promote the beneficial effects of biotech crops. It should be noted that some opponents of GM food have started to rethink their prior attitudes about GM food. 25 On the other hand, some research suggested that many opponents are evidence-insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks vs. benefits. 26 Food Evolution, a 2017 documentary film directed by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) vividly illustrated the polarizing worldwide debate, “for and against” GM food. Its fact based, story telling narrative delivered a powerful educational message on new technologies and the process of acceptance by consumers. People involved in the making of the film tried to encourage audiences to think critically and reexamine their information sources and beliefs regarding GM food.

Factors shaping public perception of GM food

How much did the public know about GM technologies? Some earlier studies 12 , 17 , 27 , 28 , 29 based their conclusions on individual and subjective questioning, and only asked the respondents: “Do you know GM technologies?” The authors in this study agree with Hallman 30 that the self-reported awareness of GM does not necessarily mean respondents understand the principles and purpose of GM food. Thus, Question #11 was asked in this survey: “Do you know the principle of GMO such as introducing foreign genes, genetic recombination and gene expression? “

The result of our survey showed only 11.7% of the respondents self-reported that they were familiar with the general scientific principles of GM technology, contrasted to 49.5 and 38.8% saying they know something and nothing, respectively, about the subject. In the absence of sufficient understanding of biotechnology, the public’s attitude towards GM food safety can be misleading. Thus, we carried out a correlation analysis between the public’s perception (Question #11) and attitudes towards GM technology (Question #7). The results are given in Table 4 .

The design of this questionnaire was based on the following hypothesis: The opinion of consumers to GM food will be related to their knowledge of GM food. This was confirmed in this survey. There were positive correlations between “know a lot” and “support”, “know nothing” and “oppose”. At the same time, there were negative correlations between “know a lot” and “oppose”, “know nothing” and “support”. The lower the understanding of GM technology, the more hesitant the respondents were to accept GM food. These results also highlight the influence and importance of studies on the public perception of science in China.

Chinese food safety scandals have been a growing concern for Chinese consumers in recent years. The incidences of illegal “gutter oil” used in cooking, pesticide residue contamination, use of feed additives and polluted water along the food chain are common problems and even with proper regulatory oversight, the risk for criminal activity is ever present. The consumers in China, as well as consumers in other parts of the world, are increasingly risk adverse and seek out “clean, natural food”. Thus, the perceived risk of GM food was heightened because of these scandals, even though perceived risk of GM food is mostly based in perception rather than in practice. How deeply does the Chinese public think about the safety of GM food? Question #12 was asked to reflect this: “Compared to other food safety issues in China, such as illegal cooking oil, pesticide residue, feed additive and water pollution, your concerns on the safety of GM foods are?” The result illustrated that 20% of respondents thought the safety issue of GM food was more severe than other issues compared 31.8% of respondents thought “nearly the same”, 22.5% of respondents thought “not as severe” and 25.7% of respondents “have no idea”. These results mean that more than half of the respondents were concerned about the safety of GM food, of which 20% were deeply concerned, above and beyond any other food issue facing China.

Source of information on GM foods

The respondents were asked, “Have you actively searched for information on GMO’s using web search, reading books and verbal inquiries after graduation?” (Question #13). The result showed that 38.7% chose “yes”, compared 36.2% who chose “No, but I really care about GMO”, and lastly, 25.2% who chose “No, I don’t care about GMO”. When asked, “How do you acquire information on GM Food?” (Question #14), the result showed that 69.3% of respondents acquire information from the Internet as compared to 45.3% from television, 27.8% from books and periodicals, 22.8% from communication from relatives and friends, 22.4% from learning at school and 9.6% from public lectures. It is well known that GM food is a complex issue, and information from the Internet is often unverified and inaccurate. Thus, there is an urgent need in China to educate the public on GM technology and GM food by providing balanced, evidence-based perspectives of the technology to consumers through presentations, written materials, documentaries and educational courses that are made widely available through various media. The government can play a key leadership role by supporting educational programs, particularly targeting young people. It also crucial to put in place safeguards and the communication needed to ensure to the public that GM foods are thoroughly tested and regarded as safe. Regulatory groups worldwide must demonstrate their ability to ensure the safety of “new” foods and food ingredients, in a harmonious and transparent manner. Another question (#15) asked was, “Based on your experience, you have found that the media reports and Internet rumors about GM Food generally tend to be?” The results showed that respondents answered the question of media atmosphere as negative (64.3%), positive (11.5%) or neutral (24.2%).

Other studies have shown that the public tends to build upon its negative impression of GM food even in the face of positive information. 31 , 32 The lack of understanding of the principles and benefits of GM technology, make the general population more susceptible to negative media reports. The debate around GM food has become increasingly one-sided in recent years, with activists spreading misinformation via social media about the human health dangers of GM food as well as the negative environmental impact of GM crops on transitional agricultural eco-systems. Additional negative information on social media had a great impact, driving down the willingness to accept GM food. This led to food-centered non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) directing their attention to generating debates, educational packages and other formats to reach out to the general public (e.g., work of US based Farmer’s and Rancher’s Association and IFT). Research supported by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences showed that rumors about food security accounted for 45% of all Internet rumors which severely influenced the public’s trust. 33 Our study also attempted to probe into the public attitudes toward rumors about GM food on the Internet. For example, in China, rice is the main staple food for 60% of its people, and hybrid rice accounts for about half the planting area of rice. Rumors were spread that hybrid rice is a GM crop. Through self-interest, some non-GMO food producers condemned GM food with malicious gossip and misplaced nationalism, fomenting the notion that GM technology originated in the U.S. as a form of bioterrorism against China. What did the public think about this? (Question #16, 17 and 18). The result (Table 5 ) showed that 15.8% of respondents think that hybrid rice is one kind of GM crop, 25% of respondents think that there is unfair business competition with GM food, 13.8% of respondents agree that GM technology maybe considered as bioterrorism to China. These results pointed to an underlying problem that the debate on GM food in China has deteriorated. It is worth mentioning, however, that more than half of the respondents (54.4%) believed that debate on GM food should be based on science. This is the basis for why the debate about GM food should be based on scientific evidence.

Since the GM food debate should be evidence-based, the public needs to put more trust in scientific explanations and research data that can be understood by the average consumer. Many scientists including 110 Nobel Prize winners openly support GMO technology in the recent years. The 2016 Report 34 issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops.” What do the American public think about the above report? A survey carried out by University of Pennsylvania 35 showed that only 22% of those surveyed agreed that scientists have not found any risks to human health from eating GM foods, while 48% of the people disagreed with that statement. What is the situation in China? The result (Question #19) showed that 23.2% of the respondents chose to “believe in biologist’s opinion” compared to 45.5% who chose to “do not trust biologist’s opinion” and 31.3% who chose to “have no idea about this.” This result reflects that scientists are “under suspicion” on the issue of GM food both in China and the US. The film, Food Evolution, and other educational materials are helping to change this viewpoint. “What is the most important information that the public wants to know about GM food?” We asked this question (#20) in the survey. The result (Table 6 ) showed that more than two out of three respondents (68.9%) wanted to know more about the safety of GM food.

Public perception and attitude to policy

The Dean and Shepherd study 36 found that participants’ perceptions of risk lessened when governmental agencies presented a consistent message to the public. China’s Ministry of Agriculture claimed in 2016 that there is no substantiated evidence showing that genetically modified foods are unsafe during the past 20 years of commercial cultivation. But according to our survey (Question #21), only 11.7% of respondents thought that the government’s statement was an “authoritative interpretation”, compared 10.9% who chose “that is concealing the truth” and 77.4% who chose “No evidence now does not mean no evidence in the future. We should still be cautious to GM foods.” To a certain extent this result demonstrates that the public does not consider the government as a credible source of information on the issue of GM food.

Question #22 addressed the following, “What kind of GM crops were approved by the government to cultivate and produce in China?” Seven options were provided, including corn, rice, wheat, soybean, cotton, rape, and papaya. Only GM cotton and GM papaya have been approved for commercial cultivation in China. According to our survey, disappointingly few, only 1.2% of respondents chose the right answers. Apparently, government sources of information on GM crops has not been effective in educating the Chinese public about GM food.

In Question #23, the respondents were asked “What do you think of the force of government supervision for the production and import of GM food?” The result showed that 47.1% of respondents felt that the government should “strengthen supervision force, it is best to totally ban the GM foods”, compared that 43.3% felt “supervision force is appropriate” and 9.6% felt “supervision force is too tight.”

“The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture claimed that GM crops and GM food are advanced technologies that can serve as the foundation of a new industrial sector with broad implications for human health and wellbeing. As a large agricultural county, China should have a place for transgenic (GMO) technologies. What do you think about this?” (Question #24) The result showed that only 28.8% of respondents “support” this policy, compared 18.9% that chose “opposed” and 52.3% that chose “neutral”. In the face of widespread suspicion and misinformation about GM foods, more effort is needed to gain the confidence, trust and support from the public domain.

GM crops and the foods derived from them are considered the most immediate solution to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. The benefits of GM crops such as greater productivity, reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, increased economic benefits for large and small farmers alike, have been extensively reviewed. 37 However, public attitudes toward GM food from country to country in different regions of the world continue to vary. The recent review by Van Eenennaam and Young 2 gives an excellent summary of the complexity of surveying and interpreting global public opinion on GM foods. In short, the authors noted the negative view of GM food in Europe, was exacerbated by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis first in the late 1980s and again in the 1990s. It was thought that GM technology might be used to mask the effects of poor housing of animals, not to mention the sense of supporting global agro-business rather than smaller family farms which are typical in Europe. In contrast, the United States, Canada and some Latin American countries (namely Brazil and Argentina) have widely adopted GM crops. Brazil is the second only to the United States in the land used for GM food crops. A review of acceptance, policies and actions in the African countries illustrated the complex and myriad issues that slow the adoption of GM food, thereby deleteriously impacting African countries. 38 Though the progress is slow, there seems to be a new receptiveness for GM food amongst some of the African countries. It is interesting to note that a study in Africa in 2005, showed that of the 7000 people surveyed, 80% did not know the meaning of the word “biotechnology”. 2 In Asian countries, it has been noted that China’s initial lead position in GM food has slowed over time due to global resistance 39 to GM food. However, signs of acceptance of GM food in China are encouraging. 40 , 41 Finally, Van Eenennaam and Young 2 compared China with other Asia countries (India, The Philippines) where bans on GM foods or vandalism on GM crops have occurred. On the other hand, Bangladesh has successfully adopted insect-resistant GM eggplant and has become a success story for the adoption of GM crops. 2 , 42

In our analysis, public attitudes toward GM food continue to swing widely across China from opposition to acceptance. On one side, some socialistic organic farmers, environmentalists and NGO’s have questioned the security of GM food, with some even calling for a ban on growing most GM crops. On the other side, agricultural specialists and biotech industry representatives highlight the benefits of GM technology to concerned consumers. The survey reported here was intended to be very broad in the type and range of questions asked. The authors plan to follow up with a more focused survey on safety issues related to GM food. Transparent and harmonious regulatory oversight is helping to further ensure the safety of GM technology and GM food but this must be understood and agreed by consumers as well as scientists. We should not expect, however, any convergence of opinions in the very near future. Based on the results of this study, suggestions about the future industrialization of GM technologies and GM food in China are presented as follows.

Strengthen communication to the public, making order out of confusion

Chinese consumers, in general, were found to be unfamiliar with GM technologies and the benefits they provide. They were also skeptical of scientists and the government on the topic of GMO, GM technologies and GM food. Fortunately, there is consensus in the public domain that more discussion on GMO and GM technologies is needed to better understand the scientific and social implications of GM food. Accordingly, public lectures and other educational formats need to be expanded in China to help the public develop evidence-based attitudes about GM foods. Until public doubts about GM food are addressed in a balanced and evidence-based manner, it will be difficult for China to develop sound policies and programs that will benefit the agribusiness industry and consumers. All forms of the media in China should be encouraged to incorporate scientific facts in their reporting and to discourage exaggerated reports and “fake” news. There should be a constructive vision and plan for building a future society that includes rational attitudes and a foundation for a food secure global society with adequate safety safeguards in place.

Government work should transform passivity into initiatives

China’s central government recently issued a document calling for more research, development and supervision of agricultural GMO and GM technologies, and the careful promotion of GM food that is safe, affordable, and healthy. From the result of the surveys taken in recent years, it was found that the percentage of respondents who opposed GM food is on the rise, and significant effort is needed to overcome that trend. The issue of GM food is very sensitive in China, GM policies have wavered among concerns over the bio-safety debate and development goals, such as food security, poverty reduction and the approval of transgenic commercial planting that was brought to a halt in recent years. In the long run, GM policies will influence the international competitiveness of the seed industry and agricultural development in China. As mentioned above, the safety of GM food should be based on science, and a modern society should not judge the safety of one kind of food by the way of a referendum. The government should enhance communications with the public and strive for the understanding and support of the public for China’s GMO policy.

Respect public opinion, improve gradually

Throughout history, many innovations have experienced both headwinds and tailwinds before being accepted by society. There is a persistent gap between expert knowledge of scientific issues and public perception of these issues. The conclusion of natural sciences usually is only truth, although the culture and attitudes can be diversified, being influenced by religious beliefs and/or political parties. Differences in public opinion towards GMO, GM technologies, and GM food should be respected. What is needed is government leadership in constructing a transparent system for evaluation of these technologies for commercial use while, at the same time, upholding the public’s right to have a choice by labeling GM food products. This will enable the public to make their own choices about GM food.

Lurking in the background, however, are new technologies that can produce genetic modifications in plants and animals in ways that are different and more precise that traditional GM technologies. The CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology 43 together with new signal DNA base editing 44 and RNA base editing 45 are currently revolutionizing the fields of agriculture, medicine and basic research. Unlike the traditional GM technology that adds foreign DNA to the recipient organism as part of the process, genome-editing, and base-editing simply switch out mutated or otherwise undesirable DNA bases that detract from the overall fitness, productivity, quality and usefulness of the organism, in question. Regulatory policies in the United States were written nearly 30 years ago and do not address the safety of genome-edited or base-edited organisms (GEOs). Currently, regulatory agencies are declaring these “edited” organisms and foods as safe and they are exempt from testing and labeling requirements. GM technology opponents have already spoken out against these forms of genetic modification and now that public must make their voices heard.

Only time will tell if foods derived from GM technology or genome-edited and base-edited organisms will be the best solution to achieving food safety, security, and sustainability. At least for GM foods, the lack of any documented adverse effects is encouraging. With the improvement of the scientific literacy, the debate about GM food should return to a rational one and one that will shape the future Chinese society.

Questionnaire development

The initial design, order and questions used in this questionnaire were based on both past information 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and input from 40 interviewees, representing consumers, agricultural officials, seed companies, farmers, biologists, and sociologists. From this input, 28 questions were generated as a pre-survey test to address the public perception of GM Food. The pre-survey was carried out in March 2016 with 100 respondents. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was refined further into the final survey of 24 questions used in this study. The goal was to gain insight into the following four questions through this survey:

In general, what are consumer’s attitudes to GM food in China?

How does public perception of GM food correlate to the science behind GM food?

What is their source of information on GM foods and how does this source influence their perception?

How does the public’s perception and attitude correlate to policy?

The survey was designed to offer a range of questions to determine the respondent’s demographics, educational level, knowledge of GM food. The survey was conducted in both public and private meeting rooms between May 2016 and October 2016. The questionnaires were distributed altogether in 38 different venues. All questionnaires were handed out to individuals and collected after 10 min by Dr. Kai Cui.

Participants

A summary of the participants in the survey is given in Table 2 . They were all Chinese citizens over the age of 15, from 193 cities and, in total, included representation from all 31 provinces in China.

Approach to distribution

The questionnaires were distributed as part of a course on investment and finance. The course was conducted by the sole instructor, Dr. Kai Cui. After the course participants became familiar with the instructor (1–2 days) and understood the purpose of the course, they were administered the questionnaires. While instructing the course, students were asked to fill out a questionnaire to give their opinions on the level of understanding of GM technology in China from a consumer’s perspective. A total of 2200 questionnaires were distributed during this 6-month period with 2063 questionnaires satisfactorily completed.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of the survey results was done using the software program package - Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS)19.0.

Data availability statement

A sample of the questionnaire. translated into English, is available in supplementary information at npj: Science of Food’s website. The completed 2063 questionnaires and the resulting database for the statistical analyses are in mandarin are not publicly available but can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

James, C. Global developing trends in biotechnology/genetically modified crop in 2015. China Biotechnol. 36 , 1–11 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Van Eenennaam, A., & Young, A. E. in Animal Biotechnology 2: eEmerging breeding technologies (eds Niemann, H. & Wrenzycki, C.) Ch. 13 (Springer, in press).

Cui, K. & Shoemaker, S. P. A look at food security in China. npj Sci. Food 2 , 4 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Carter, C. A., Zhong, F. & Zhu, J. Advances in Chinese agriculture and its global implications. Appl. Econ. Pers. Policy 34 , 1–36 (2012).

Wang, Q. China’s scientists must engage the public on GM. Nature 519 , 7 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Roberts, D. & Bjerga, A. China does an about-face on GMOs. Bloom. News . http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/china-does-an-about-face-on-gmos (2015).

Prakash, C. S. GM crops in the media. GM Crops & Food 6 , 63–68 (2015).

Huang, J. Awareness, acceptance and willingness to buy genetically modified food in urban China. China Soft Sci. 2 , 61–67 (2006).

Liu, Z., Wang, C., Li, N., Zhang, J. & Zhang, K. Investigation and analysis for Jinan consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Rev. China Agric. Sci. Technol. 1 , 52–58 (2007).

Zhou, M. & Liu, Q. Investigation for Changsha consumers’ recognition and attitude to genetically modified food. Consum. Econ. 3 , 51–53 (2009).

Fan, L., Wei, W. & Zhu, Z. Investigation and thinking for consumers’ recognition to GMfood. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 20 , 80–85 (2010).

Shen, J., Yan, M., Tian, Z. & Zhu, X. The survey on consumer perception about GM food in Nanjing City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 39 , 10909–10912 (2011).

Li, P. Consumer awareness and acceptance of GM foods in Guangzou city. Mark. Mod. 19 , 70–72 (2010).

Feng, L., Qi, Z., Tian, Y. & Zhou, H. Analysis on the impact factors of consumers’ purchase intention of GMfood. J. China Agric. Univ. 3 , 7–14 (2012).

Wu, W. Consumer awareness of genetically modified foods and consumer attitude survey analysis of the situation. J. Southwest Univ. Natl 5 , 771–775 (2011).

Xue, X. Investigation for Hangzhou urban population’s recognition and attitude to GM Food. Mod. Prop. Mgmt. 1 , 84–85 (2012).

Ruan, J., Chen, Chen, L., Guo, S. & La, W. Investigation and analysis of consumer recognition of genetically modified foods and transgenic labeling—a case study of Shenzhen city. Mod. Food Sci. Technol . 4 , 848–852 (2013).

Zheng, K., Wende, Chen & Jiayin., Xu Investigation and analysis for Chengdu consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 33 , 12966–12968 (2013).

Zhang, Y., Zheng, Z. & Gao, Y. Consumer perception and acceptance of GMfood. China Rural Surv. 6 , 49–61 (2015).

Li, Q., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., Ma, L. & Ma, M. Analysis of the perception and purchase of GM food in Anhui Province. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 35 , 116–121 (2015).

Zhang, X., Liu, X. & Deng, M. GMfood: a study of Chinese public’s recognition and attitude. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 20 , 6783–6786 (2014).

Guo, L. An investigation on cognition attitudes of the consumers towards GM foods in Zhuzhou. Mod. Food 21 , 12–15 (2015).

Meng, L., Yang, L. & Cheng, J. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Shanxi province. Food Saf. Guide 24 , 55–57 (2016).

Evans, E. A., & Ballen, F. H. A synopsis of US consumer perception of genetically modified crops. Univ. Florida IFAS Extension - Document FE934 . http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe934 (2016).

Barrows, G., Sexton, S. & Zilberman, D. Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. J. Econ. Perspect. 1 , 99–120 (2014).

Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 , 315–324 (2016).

Wang, Y. Investigation and analysis for consumers’ recognition to genetically modified food. Environ. Prot. 3 , 46–52 (2005).

Shi, S. Survey of consumer recognition of GM food in Wenzhou City. Mark. Mod. 30 , 9–10 (2015).

Tang, Y., Zuo, C., Zhao, S., Li, X. & Wang, X. Analyses of public GM food acceptance in Xian City. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 34 , 267–270 (2015).

Hallman, W. K, HebdenW. C. & AquinoH. L. Public Perception of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (Food Policy Institute, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, 2003). Report Number RR-1003-1004.

Ho, P. & Vermeer, E. B. Food safety concerns and biotechnology: consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified products in urban China. AgbioForum 4 , 158–175 (2004).

Zheng, Z. The effects of information on consumer behavior: citing GM rice. J. World Econ. 9 , 146–167 (2015).

Hu, Y. Why Rumors of Food Security have the Market? Beijing Youth Daily . (2016).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospect . (The National Academies Press, 2016) https://doi.org/10.17226/23395 .

Jamieson K. H. and Winneg, K., Annenberg Science Knowledge Survey: Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of GM foods. (2016) https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-support-gmo-food-labels-but-dont-know-much-about-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/ .

Dean, M. & Shepherd, R. Effects from sources in conflict and in consensus on perceptions of genetically modified food. Food Qual. Prefer. 18 , 460–469 (2007).

Qaim, M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition and health. New Biotechnol. 27 , 552–557 (2010).

Wesseler, J., Smart, R. D., Thomson, J. & Ziberman, D. Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 12 , e0181353 (2017).

Jayaranman, K. & Jia, H. GM phobia spreads in South Asia. Natl Biotechnol. 30 , 1017–1019 (2012).

Li, R., Wang, Q. & McHughen, A. Chinese government reaffirms backing for GM products. Natl Biotechnol. 33 , 1029 (2015).

Vazquez–Salat, N. & Houdebine, L. Will GM animals follow the GM planet fate? Transgen. Res. 22 , 5–13 (2013).

ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech GM Crops: 2016 . (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, 2016).

Carroll, D. Genome editing: past, present and future. Yale J. Biol. Med. 90 , 663–659 (2017).

Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A.T to G.C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551 , 464–471 (2017).

Cox, D. B. T. et al. RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science 358 , 1019–1027 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 7157317). The corresponding author would like to express the gratitude to Hui Meng (Professor of Eastern China Normal University), Dr. Xiaojun Lv (Associate Professor of Shanghai Jiaotong University) and Dr. Yan Liu (Associate Professor of Indiana University) for their suggestions in the design of the questionnaire and also acknowledge Beina Zhang and Yongyong Yang (Master students of Shanghai Normal University) for their support in data analysis. The co-author would like to gratefully acknowledge Professors Raymond Rodriguez, Professor Alison Van Eeneenaam and Christine Bruhn from the University of California, Davis, for their editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71573173).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California Davis, Davis, USA

Kai Cui & Sharon P. Shoemaker

Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Shi, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Kai Cui, corresponding author, designed the questionnaire and delivered it to groups he met with in China. He secured the help for the statistical evaluation of the respondents in the survey. Dr. Sharon Shoemaker provided advice and collaboration in the fundamentals and consumer attitudes of GM technology. She was Dr. Cui’s mentor while he was at the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research (CIFAR), UC Davis, and she provided basic understanding on the topic of GM Food and biotechnology, in general. She also contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript in English.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Cui .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cui, K., Shoemaker, S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. npj Sci Food 2 , 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2017

Revised : 28 January 2018

Accepted : 09 April 2018

Published : 05 June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing knowledge and willingness to use genetically modified crops in uganda.

• Abubakar Sadik Mustafa
• Jamilu E. Ssenku
• Godwin Anywar

Agriculture & Food Security (2023)

From present to prosperity: assessing the current status and envisioning opportunities in the industrial-scale cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis for astaxanthin production

• Thilini U. Ariyadasa
• Bavatharny Thevarajah
• Wanni Arachchige Jalitha Wasath

Phytochemistry Reviews (2023)

The decision to buy genetically modified foods in China: what makes the difference?

• Weizhuo Wang
• Christopher Gan
• Quang Thi Thieu Nguyen

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)

Information seeking about genetically modified foods: readability of online information

• Lalitha Samuel
• Sawyer I. Basch
• Joseph Fera

Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2023)

Genetic modification strategies for enhancing plant resilience to abiotic stresses in the context of climate change

• Amman KhokharVoytas
• Muhammad Shahbaz
• Manal Abdullah AlShaqhaa

Functional & Integrative Genomics (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetics — GMO

Essays on Gmo

Genetically modified food essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: genetically modified food: benefits, risks, and ethical considerations.

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of genetically modified (GM) food, exploring its potential benefits in agriculture and food security, examining the associated risks, and discussing the ethical implications of altering the genetic makeup of organisms.

• Introduction
• Understanding Genetic Modification: Techniques and Applications in Agriculture
• The Benefits of GM Food: Increased Crop Yields, Reduced Pesticide Use, and Improved Nutrition
• Potential Risks and Concerns: Environmental Impact, Allergenicity, and Long-Term Health Effects
• Ethical Dilemmas: Ownership of Genetic Resources, Consent, and Consumer Rights
• Regulation and Labeling: Balancing Innovation with Transparency
• Conclusion: The Complex Landscape of Genetically Modified Food

Essay Title 2: GMOs and Global Food Security: Examining the Role of Genetically Modified Crops

Thesis Statement: This essay focuses on the relationship between genetically modified crops and global food security, investigating how GM technology can address challenges such as population growth, climate change, and sustainable agriculture.

• The Global Food Crisis: Feeding a Growing Population
• GM Crops as a Solution: Drought Resistance, Pest Tolerance, and Enhanced Nutrition
• Environmental Considerations: Sustainable Farming and Reduced Carbon Footprint
• Challenges and Criticisms: Concerns About Corporate Control and Biodiversity
• Case Studies: Success Stories and Lessons from GM Crop-Adopting Countries
• Conclusion: The Promise and Pitfalls of Genetically Modified Crops for Food Security

Essay Title 3: Informed Consumer Choices: GMO Labeling and the Right to Know

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the debate over GMO labeling, emphasizing the importance of transparency in food labeling, consumers' right to know about GM ingredients, and the implications of labeling policies on the food industry and public perception.

• The GMO Labeling Movement: Origins, Goals, and Advocacy
• Transparency vs. Industry Interests: The Controversy Surrounding Labeling Laws
• Consumer Perceptions: Trust, Skepticism, and Informed Decision-Making
• Global Perspectives: Labeling Practices in Various Countries
• Impact on the Food Industry: Compliance, Product Formulation, and Market Trends
• Conclusion: Balancing Consumer Rights and Industry Interests in GMO Labeling

The Gmo Debate: Weighing The Pros and Cons

Gmo persuasive speech outline, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Gmo Good Or Bad

Genetically modified food, research the impact of genetically modified food on health, why gmo foods are bad, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Arguments for Genetically Modified Food

Harmful effects of gmo products, gmo: negative sides and a higher purpose, the potential of gmos to help combat world hunger, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gmos: History, Effects, and Controversies

Genetic engineering: using biotechnology in gmo, environmental impact of plastics, gmos, and animal captivity, the use and safety of gmos from a skeptical point of view, the genetically modified food as the risk in the society, research whether genetically modified food is good or bad, banning unlabeled genetically modified food, the impact of gmos on humans and the environment, genetically modified organisms: soybeans, questionable idea of genetic modification of humans, in vitro meat as a sustainable solution, genetically modified foods: history of creation and use, the issue surrounding the health dangers of genetically modified food, cereals as a staple & refined food, the potential harm of consuming genetically modified food, gene editing and the future of food, the issues surrounding the consumption of genetically modified foods, the future of food supply and agriculture, discussion on the theme of genetically modified foods, the importance of genetically modified food for the storage of the african savannah.

Genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. It was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.

Genetically modified foods are usually edited to have some desired characteristics, including certain benefits for surviving extreme environments, an enhanced level to nutrition, the access of therapeutic substances, and the resistance genes to pesticide and herbicides. These characteristics could be beneficial to humans and the environment in certain ways.

Studies show that GMO crops have fewer chances of mutating compared to non-GMO crops. Over 12% of global farmland grows GMO crops. 54% of all GMOs worldwide grow in the Third World countries. Soybeans count for half of all GMO crops grown worldwide.

Relevant topics

• Stephen Hawking
• Charles Darwin
• Mathematics in Everyday Life
• Space Exploration
• Biotechnology

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Resources for You (Food)
• Agricultural Biotechnology

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. “GMO” (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering . Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

• Resistance to insect damage
• Tolerance to herbicides
• Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya , is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people’s diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava , insect-resistant cowpea , and blight-resistant potato .

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Food Sci Nutr
• v.9(9); 2021 Sep

Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review

Tadesse fikre teferra.

1 School of Nutrition, Food Science and Technology, College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Sidama Ethiopia

Global population is increasing at an alarming rate, posing a threat on the supplies of basic needs and services. However, population increase does not seem to be a common agendum of the global scientists and political leaders. People in the developed countries are more concerned about new technologies and their products. Pseudo‐threats related to the uncertainties of genetic engineering of crops and their outputs present on consumers are more audible and controversial than the real difficulties the world is experiencing at the moment and in the future. This review presents brief summaries of the real reasons to worry about and the uncertainties about genetically modified organisms. This article also presents the real uncertainties shared by consumers and scientists with respect to the past, present, and future of genetically engineered organisms. Developments in the field of precision genetics in the recent years and the implications on regulatory, breeding, and socio‐cultural dimensions of the global settings are included.

This review article presents competing and contradicting human interests. On one hand, we are opposing great agricultural technologies such as genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the genetic engineering techniques. On the other hand, we are challenged with the need for feeding humanity into the future, where the global population and food production are not keeping pace of one another.

1. INTRODUCTION

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been topics of hot debates over the last few decades. Some countries have been known to have a fierce regulatory framework over the genetically modified crops. The regulations of the European Union are the ones that have been subjects of continued criticism in this regard. For instance, papers published recently argue about the basis for the EU’s regulation on the GM crops (Custers et al.,  2019 ; Eckerstorfer et al.,  2019 ; Halford,  2019 ; Hokanson,  2019 ; Landrum et al.,  2019 ). It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, nondiscrimination, and scientific adaptability (Custers et al.,  2019 ). In 2015, the New York times carried an article with the headline: “With GMO policies, Europe turns against science” (Lynas,  2015 ). The European regulations do not seem to be very realistic in terms of the current challenges the world is facing in feeding the increasing global population. A predictive study conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute indicated that by 2050, the world population reaches 9 billion and additional 70% food supply is needed than what is produced now (Ringler et al.,  2010 ). More articles and arguments started coming out later (Hickey,  2019 ; Long et al.,  2015 ; Ray et al.,  2013 ), emphasizing the fact that the world leaders and scientists need to be worried about feeding humanity into the future and act on the use of all available technologies. This is evident that the world will not have the luxury to avoid agricultural technologies (Jacobsen et al.,  2013 ), but need to use all available techniques without discrimination and accelerate innovation of new ones that can increase food production and productivities to be able to continue feeding humanity.

Genetically modified organisms are categories of products that came out of advanced breeding technologies, which are also categorized as precision breeding techniques (Eriksson,  2019 ). Traditional breeding started by simple crossing of better performing organisms with each other and stabilizing the desirable traits by self‐crossing (inbreeding), which is done several times. The first hybrid corn that was inbred several times was documented to be commercially available in the early 1920s (Anderson,  1944 ). Later on, breeding using mutation (alteration of genetic make ups of crops) was devised to bring about variation of performances in a population. Chemical (Ethyl methanesulfonate [EMS]), an alkylating agent that can react with cell components and cause changes to the genetics of organisms, has been in use since the 1960s (Krieg,  1963 ). In the mid‐20th century, ionizing electromagnetic irradiations (X‐ and gamma‐rays) were also used to cause random alteration in the genes of crops (Ulukapi & Ayse,  2015 ), out of which elite lines with respect to desirable traits were chosen for further breeding processes.

The science of plant genetics expanded, and the understanding of the transferability of DNA and RNA developed in the 1970s (Chassy,  2007 ), which later led to the development of biotechnology with a technique called “genetic engineering.” These later developments were not random alterations of genes that used to be followed by selection of elite lines and several inbreeding. The development of GMO with inserted genes from unrelated species was made possible. These later led to the development of precision genetic engineering (GE), and a very accurate specific site targeting alterations were achieved (Nakayama et al.,  2014 ).

Today, we do not even need transferring of genes from unrelated species to bring about a desired trait in food crops or animals. The application of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)‐Cas systems in genome editing has been popular since its discovery in the Escherichia coli genome in 1987 (Ishino et al.,  2018 ). This review paper presents a perspective of GMO technology, associated risks, and its current status.

2. BASICS OF GENETIC MATERIALS

The genetic material has basic components that collectively define the physical and biochemical properties of living entities. A gene contains a single helical stride (nucleotide) called ribonucleic acid (RNA) and a double helical nucleotide known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that are connected by a pairing bonds of four bases (cytosine [C] with guanine [G] and adenine [A] with thymine [T]) (Figure  1 ). The chemical bases are the building blocks of the gene, and the stretching helical nucleotides are made of pentose sugar phosphatases. The specific sequences of the bases in the gene are responsible for the formation of specific proteins that dictates the behavior of the organisms (Schjerling,  2005 ).

Basics of genetic materials: components and descriptions

The sequences of the bases are manipulated in modern precision biotechnological techniques also known as genetic modifications (GM) or GE (Singh et al.,  2006 ), and they naturally and randomly change through evolution (Radman et al.,  2000 ). This review summarizes the concerns associated with the GE techniques and GMO with respect to food safety and environmental sustainability.

3. GENERAL REVIEW OF GM TECHNIQUES

3.1. categories of gm techniques.

Genetic engineering can be classified into two big categories: the transgenic and transgenic‐free types. Transgene GE involves the transfer of genetic materials from unrelated species, usually from microorganisms (bacteria and molds) associated with desirable trait into a target organism (Bock & Norris,  2018 ). This has been a ground breaking technology in plant breeding since the 1980s and improved agricultural production and productivity. The products of transgenic biotechnology have been termed as GMO, and the process is termed as genetic engineering (GE), GM, or biotechnology (Peter et al.,  2011 ). This process and its products have been subjects of controversy among consumers in the developed world (Cellini et al.,  2004 ; Eriksson,  2018 ; Hickey,  2019 ; Lynas,  2015 ; Van Den Eede et al.,  2004 ; Zhao & Ho,  2005 ), particularly with respect to food safety. Transgenic free GM has emerged as alternative technology CRISPR/cas 9 systems, where natural or artificial genes (DNA, RNA) are used to modify genetics of the target organisms associated with desirable traits. The existence of CRISPR cas system was discovered in 1987, when an unusual repetitive DNA sequence in the Escherichia coli genome during an analysis of genes involved in phosphate metabolism (Ishino et al.,  2018 ). Scientists started exploring this technology for gene editing applications only in the 2000s. The advantage of CRISPR technology is that it enables insertion and deletion of genes at much easier way than the transgenic process and also it escapes fierce regulatory procedures developed for the transgenic products.

3.2. Success of GM techniques—rescuing crops from invisible beasts and beyond

Genetic modifications has been known in agriculture for rescuing many food crops from invisible beasts that could have led to total extinction. A popular success story in this regard has been the transgenic Hawaiian Rainbow Papaya, which was developed to rescue this crop when it was devastated by ringspot virus in the 1990s (Gonsalves,  1998 ; Gonsalves & Ferreira,  2003 ). Production of papaya in Puna district of Hawaii, which was contributing 95% of the total, dropped from 27,762.5 tons in 1994 (after 2 years of the occurrence of the papaya ringspot virus, PRSV) to 12,805 tons in 1998, which was a 53.88% loss in just 4 years, Figure  2 , extracted from Gonsalves and Ferreira ( 2003 ). The release of the transgenic rainbow papaya helped to revive the production to 20,000 tons, a 35.98%, increase in just 2 years.

Papaya production during the ringspot disease spread

Other success stories in rescuing plants from devastating diseases include that reported on rice against sheath blight by Liang ( 1998 ). Another potential transgenic technique for many crops (wheat, potato, carrots and tomatoes were report early on (Liang,  1998 ; Melchers & Stuiver,  2000 )) and all these are great agricultural technologies available to the world to increase crop resistance to disease and boost production to help food production and supply to the increasing population.

The other great success of agricultural biotechnology involving transgenic crops was the biofortification of rice with beta‐carotenes (precursors of vitamin A), in eradicating preventable blindness in millions of children in developing countries (Beyer et al.,  2002 ; Ye & Beyer,  2000 ). It is also clear that the principles used in rice biofortification could be applied to many more crops for the future, in efforts of feeding the world.

3.3. Uncertainties shared by consumers and scientists about GMOs

There are tangible uncertainties related to the science of GE and GMO products. According to Myhr ( 2009 ) and Nielsen and Myhr ( 2007 ), the types of uncertainties surrounding GE and GMOs can be divided into three broad classes:

• Reducible uncertainty, due to lack of knowledge and the novelty of the activity, which can be addressed with more research and focused collection of empirical data.
• Irreducible uncertainty due to inherent randomness, variability, and complexity in the nature of biological system under consideration.
• Uncertainty arising from ignorance given that the prevailing operating paradigms and models do not adequately represent the biological system evaluated.

However, since the start of wide exercise of modern biotechnology in the early 1980s for genetic improvement of food crops (Chassy,  2007 ), there have never been any direct safety hazard reported from any GE or GMOs. Moreover, governments have established the most strict testing measures for the safety of GMOs over the last decades to make sure public safety and environmental sustainability, as summarized in multiple scientific documentations (Davison & Ammann,  2017 ; Hartung & Schaub,  2018 ; Smyth & Phillips,  2014 ). However, the pseudo concerns over the safety and environmental sustainability of GMOs were extremely heightened by consumers and social media activism together with misconceptions aired by mainstream medias in the western world and by some governments, particularly in the European Union, which were also reported in scientific publications (Ammann,  2014 ; Kuntz,  2012 ; Masip et al.,  2013 ; Tagliabue,  2015 ). Due to the strict regulations and associated hurdles created by series of tests and examinations by regulatory bodies, the GE techniques became too expensive and the time required to generate technology has been elongated. This also increased the cost of doing innovation in GE. This moved the research and development (R&D) activities in biotechnology from the public research sectors exclusively to the private corporates. Today, GE does not seem to be a technique of choice even in the corporate R&D plans, as CRISPR cas‐9 is getting popularity.

4. SHOULD WE STILL WORRY ABOUT GMOS? WHY AND WHY NOT?

4.1. why should we still worry about gmos.

If GMO crops and animals are presenting any concern to the consumer safety and/or environmental sustainability, there is no escape as GM entities are already in the environment, extensively crossing with the land races of the genetically engineered crops and their wild relatives, particularly for the cross‐pollinating crops (Castro Galvan et al.,  2019 ; Halfhill et al.,  2003 ; Jhala et al.,  2021 ; Stewart et al.,  2003 ; Wisniewski et al.,  2002 ). The myths and realities associated with the GE of maize and more were reported by Parrott ( 2010 ). In certain countries like the United States of America, the GM crops are already massively in the production systems. The US average percent acreage under GM corn and soy bean by 2020 were reported to be 91.47 and 93.81, respectively, as documented by FDA ( 2020 ; USDA,  2020 ). In the FDA data, the proportion of GM corn and soy has shown steep increase between 2000 and 2013 and remained almost constant after 2014 (Figure  3 ).

Land acreage under GM corn and soybean in the United States

The large proportion of GM in the crop production systems in the United States is also affecting the market destinations of corn and soy beans, the major one being Mexico. The development that the Mexican government is due to ban import of GM corn by 2024 has been a shocking news to the US market (Polansek,  2021 ). Corn in Mexico has already been under hot debates pertaining to the introgression of transgenic lines into the local landraces posing threat to the national corn biodiversity (Duncan et al.,  2019 ; Mercer & Wainwright,  2008 ; Ortiz‐Garcia et al.,  2005 ; Quist & Chapela,  2001 ). This heightens the uncertainties and concerns of GM technologies on food safety and environmental sustainability. The implication is that, if the risks of GMOs on consumer safety and natural biodiversity is real, the world has to just face it and find a way out, as there is no easy escape as of now. Rather than fragmented approaches by nations like Mexico, a global consensus is needed to support basic researches focusing on generating robust empirical data and accumulating knowledge that would potentially help in developing lasting solutions.

4.2. Why should we not worry about GMO?

There are several points that reduces our worries about GMOs. As discussed in the previous sections, GMO is no longer the method of choice in improving crops for better economic and technological outcomes. GE is an extremely expensive technique in terms of technologies, fierce regulations, and time requirements. There are also easily acceptable and more accurate technologies taking over the transgenic GE with no regulations required (at least for now). Since its introduction in the 1980s (Ishino et al.,  2018 ), CRISPR cas‐9 is getting popularity as a safer and cheaper GE technique that avoids the need for transferring genetic materials from unrelated species with a lot of uncertainties. Transgenic techniques of crop improvement are getting a smoother exit pushed by multiple factors including the cost, regulations, time requirements, consumer rejections, and uncertainties associated to its products emanating from lack of complete understanding and confidence for future predictions.

5. WHAT IS NEW IN THE FIELD OF BIOTECHNOLOGY?

The field of molecular genetics has ever been growing and resulted into the development of new tools that enabled scientists to advance GE applications. For instance, the once difficult GE of ornamental plants was made simple in the next‐generation genome sequencing (Smulders & Arens,  2018 ). Details of molecular plant breeding strategies and tools are compiled into a book (Al‐Khayri et al.,  2016 ) for more insights. The possibility of engineering crops to enhance metabolic pathways that improve human nutrition and health has been recently documented (Birchfield & McIntosh,  2020 ; Tatsis & O’Connor,  2016 ; Zheng et al.,  2020 ). The developments in the CRISPR cas‐9 techniques in plant breeding is presenting the options of insertion and/or deletion of multiple genes at a time that are responsible for different traits (Kim et al.,  2017 ; Shin et al.,  2017 ). In improving wheat to eliminate gluten reactions, deletion of up to 35 different genes out of 45, identified to be responsible for gliadin synthesis (major gluten component responsible for celiac disease and wheat allergy), was possible, while immunoreactivity was reduced by 85% (Sánchez‐León et al.,  2018 ). More detailed reports on the future prospects of CRISPR cas‐9 techniques were recently presented by Nidhi et al. ( 2021 ). More accurate applications of the new GE techniques, including CRISPR, are expected to better enhance the nutrition and health of people in the years to come.

6. WHAT SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNING THAN GMO?

It is expected that the population of the globe will be reaching 9 billion in a matter of three decades. The population pressure will be more concerning to the developing world as food supply will be extremely challenging (Jacobsen et al.,  2013 ). In those situations, the world leaders and scientists will not have the luxury of choosing agricultural technologies, but try all that are available and create new ones to increase food production. According to the population data extracted from the World Bank (WB,  2021 ), and staple crops production data extracted from FAOSTAT (FAO,  2021 ), the major staple crops (cereals and pulses) production has not been keeping pace with the global population growth over the last half century (Figure  4 ), regardless of the ground breaking innovations in agriculture. This implies that we need to be much more concerned about being able to continue feeding humanity into the future than choosing and accusing technologies made available to increase food production and sustain supplies.

Population versus crop production, not keeping pace of each other

The Europeans have been against GMO and other agricultural technologies by setting controversial regulations. The Europeans have also been promoting and funding organic and conventional agricultural practices in developing world and restricting them from producing enough toward food security (Popescu,  2019 ; Willer & Lernoud,  2019 ). Europe is the major region of the world being continuously challenged by migrations of people from developing countries and should work to support these populations toward ensuring food security, rather than dealing with migration crisis (Mavroudi & Nagel,  2016 ).

Ray et al. ( 2013 ) reported that yields in maize, rice, wheat, and soybean—that comprises nearly two‐thirds of global agricultural calories, are increasing at 1.6%, 1.0%, 0.9%, and 1.3% per year noncompounding rates, respectively, which is less than the 2.4% per year rate required to double global food production by 2050. Europe does not seem to be caring about the grand global challenge ahead of us, but the unrealistic “food safety” concerns associated with the GMO products.

It should be clear that the world prioritizes boosting agricultural production to be able to feed humanity, and no exception for Europe and other powers. Feeding the increasing population should be a matter of grave concern to the scientists, leaders, and the general public. It is projected that the current pace of food production and yield is not being able to keep up with the population growth (Figure  4 ), which is expected to hit 10 billion over the next three decades (Hickey,  2019 ). In addition to decisions to use all available technologies, it is a necessity that efforts are made to develop new agricultural technologies and increase food productions and yield to supply enough foods to the increasing population. In this respect, GMO technology is not just a matter of choice, but the technology with great potential to be explored towards achieving global food and nutrition security, as there are no other promising resources and mechanisms more important in achieving goal of feeding 10+ billion people around the globe, in just three decades.

The hugely controversial concerns over the GMO foods in terms of consumer safety and environmental sustainability seem to remain unchanged. There are tangible reasons for the world to still worry about GMO, although new techniques emerged and are getting popularity in Biotechnology. There are also arguments that advanced GE technologies remain alternative means for increasing food production and should get the necessary attentions by the scientists and leaders at global level. Even if the transgenic GMOs are seemingly giving ways to the CRISPR edited nontransgenic GMOs that are exempted from the strict regulations, the world will remain threatened by the heavy presence of the transgenic GMOs and their potential risks. It seems that rather than worrying about the GMO food safety and environmental sustainability, the world should be worried by the increasing global population that is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, leaving the world short of food supply by over 70%. The population pressure, coupled with corrupt leadership in developing countries, is more concerning to sustain humanity. Worrying only about the issues of the populations in the developed world and ignoring those of the developing countries will make the world pay steeper and real prices than just a worry about uncertainties in a particular technology. Developed countries have already started dealing with immigration crises by people escaping the corrupted leaderships in Africa, Asia, and the rest of the continents. Increasing food production and health services with all the available technologies including GE should be the way forward.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declare that he does not have any conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Tadesse Fikre Teferra: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation (lead); Investigation (lead); Writing‐original draft (lead); Writing‐review & editing (lead).

ETHICAL REVIEW

This study did not involve any human or animal testing.

INFORMED CONSENT

This review article did not involve study participants, and informed consent was not required.

Teferra, T. F. (2021). Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review . Food Science & Nutrition , 9 , 5324–5331. 10.1002/fsn3.2499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Al‐Khayri, J. M., Jain, S. M., & Johnson, D. V. (Eds.) (2016). Advances in plant breeding strategies: Breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools (Vol. 1 , pp. 3–645). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ammann, K. (2014). Genomic misconception: A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation . New Biotechnology , 31 ( 1 ), 1–17. 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, E. (1944). The sources of effective germ‐plasm in hybrid maize . Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden , 31 ( 4 ), 355. 10.2307/2394369 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beyer, P., Al‐Babili, S., Ye, X., Lucca, P., Schaub, P., Welsch, R., & Potrykus, I. (2002). Golden rice: Introducing the β‐carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency . Journal of Nutrition , 132 ( 3 ), 506S–510S. 10.1093/jn/132.3.506s [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birchfield, A. S., & McIntosh, C. A. (2020). Metabolic engineering and synthetic biology of plant natural products – A minireview . Current Plant Biology , 24 , 100163. 10.1016/j.cpb.2020.100163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castro Galvan, E., Maldonado Torres, M., & Pérez Urquiza, M. (2019). Zea maize reference materials for genetically modified organism detection in Mexico . Ecology and Evolution , 9 , 12353–12356. 10.1002/ece3.5667 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cellini, F., Chesson, A., Colquhoun, I., Constable, A., Davies, H. V., Engel, K. H., Gatehouse, A., Kärenlampi, S., Kok, E. J., Leguay, J.‐J., Lehesranta, S., Noteborn, H., Pedersen, J., & Smith, M. (2004). Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops . Food and Chemical Toxicology , 42 ( 7 ), 1089–1125. 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chassy, B. M. (2007). The history and future of GMOs in food and agriculture . Cereal Foods World , 52 , 169–172. 10.1094/CFW-52-4-0169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Custers, R., Casacuberta, J. M., Eriksson, D., Sági, L., & Schiemann, J. (2019). Genetic alterations that do or do not occur naturally; Consequences for genome edited organisms in the context of regulatory oversight . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 6 ( Jan ), 1–7. 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00213 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison, J., & Ammann, K. (2017). January 2). New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology . GM Crops and Food , 8 , 13–34. 10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan, B., Leyva‐Guerrero, E., Werk, T., Stojšin, D., Baltazar, B. M., García‐Lara, S., Zavala‐López, M., de la Fuente‐Martínez, J. M., & Meng, C. (2019). Assessment of potential impacts associated with gene flow from transgenic hybrids to Mexican maize landraces . Transgenic Research , 28 ( 5–6 ), 509–523. 10.1007/s11248-019-00160-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckerstorfer, M. F., Engelhard, M., Heissenberger, A., Simon, S., & Teichmann, H. (2019). Plants developed by new genetic modification techniques – Comparison of existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and Non‐EU countries . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 7 , 1–16. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson, D. (2018, May 4). Recovering the original intentions of risk assessment and management of genetically modified organisms in the European Union . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 6 , 1–4. 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00052 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson, D. (2019, March 1). The evolving EU regulatory framework for precision breeding . Theoretical and Applied Genetics , 132 , 569–573. 10.1007/s00122-018-3200-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO (2021). Wolrd Staple Crops Production Data . Retrieved May 2, 2021, from FAOSTAT website: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC [ Google Scholar ]
• FDA (2020). GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond | FDA . Retrieved June 5, 2021, from fda.gov website: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural‐biotechnology/gmo‐crops‐animal‐food‐and‐beyond [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonsalves, D. (1998). Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: A case study . Annual Review of Phytopathology , 36 ( 1 ), 415–437. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.415 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonsalves, D., & Ferreira, S. (2003). Transgenic papaya: A case for managing risks of papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii . Plant Health Progress , 4 ( 1 ), 17. 10.1094/php-2003-1113-03-rv [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halfhill, M. D., Millwood, R. J., Weissinger, A. K., Warwick, S. I., & Stewart, C. N. (2003). Additive transgene expression and genetic introgression in multiple green‐fluorescent protein transgenic crop × weed hybrid generations . Theoretical and Applied Genetics , 107 ( 8 ), 1533–1540. 10.1007/s00122-003-1397-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halford, N. G. (2019). Legislation governing genetically modified and genome‐edited crops in Europe: The need for change . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 99 ( 1 ), 8–12. 10.1002/jsfa.9227 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartung, U., & Schaub, S. (2018). The regulation of genetically modified organisms on a local level: Exploring the determinants of cultivation bans . Sustainability (Switzerland) , 10 ( 10 ), 3392. 10.3390/su10103392 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hickey, L. T., N. Hafeez, A., Robinson, H., Jackson, S. A., Leal‐Bertioli, S. C. M., Tester, M., Gao, C., Godwin, I. D., Hayes, B. J., & Wulff, B. B. H. (2019). Breeding crops to feed 10 billion . Nature Biotechnology , 37 , 744–754. 10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hokanson, K. E. (2019). When policy meets practice: The dilemma for guidance on risk assessment under the Cartagena protocol on biosafety . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 7 , 1–18. 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00082 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinitz, B. F. (2018). Summation and a look to the future. In Bock J. H. & Norris D. O. (Eds.), Forensic plant science (pp. 149–168). Ewing: Springer International Publishing. 10.1016/b978-0-12-801475-2.00011-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishino, Y., Krupovic, M., & Forterre, P. (2018). History of CRISPR‐Cas from encounter with a mysterious repeated sequence to genome editing technology . Journal of Bacteriology , 200 ( 7 ), 1–17. 10.1128/JB.00580-17 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen, S. E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2013, October). Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 33 , 651–662. 10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jhala, A. J., Norsworthy, J. K., Ganie, Z. A., Sosnoskie, L. M., Beckie, H. J., Mallory‐Smith, C. A., Liu, J., Wei, W., Wang, J., & Stoltenberg, D. E. (2021, April 1). Pollen‐mediated gene flow and transfer of resistance alleles from herbicide‐resistant broadleaf weeds . Weed Technology , 35 , 173–187. 10.1017/wet.2020.101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, H., Kim, S. T., Ryu, J., Kang, B. C., Kim, J. S., & Kim, S. G. (2017). CRISPR/Cpf1‐mediated DNA‐free plant genome editing . Nature Communications , 8 ( 1 ), 1–7. 10.1038/ncomms14406 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krieg, D. R. (1963). Ethyl methanesulfonate‐induced reversion of bacteriophage T4rII mutants . Genetics , 48 ( 4 ), 561–580. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1210494/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuntz, M. (2012). Destruction of public and governmental experiments of GMO in Europe . GM Crops & Food , 3 , 258–264. 10.4161/gmcr.21231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrum, A. R., Hallman, W. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2019). Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically‐modified organisms . Environmental Communication , 13 ( 1 ), 51–70. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, J. (1998). AFP genes confer disease resistance to transgenic potato and wheat plants . International Workshop on Pathogenesis‐Related Proteins in Plants ; Signalling Pathways and Biological Activities 1998. Aussois, France . Retrieved from https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10021908444
• Long, S. P., Marshall‐Colon, A., & Zhu, X.‐G. (2015). Meeting the global food demand of the future by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential . Cell , 161 , 56–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynas, M. (2015). With G.M.O. Policies, Europe turns against science . The New York times . Retrieved December 1, 2019, from New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with‐gmo‐policies‐europe‐turns‐against‐science.html?_r=0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Masip, G., Sabalza, M., Pérez‐Massot, E., Banakar, R., Cebrian, D., Twyman, R. M., & Christou, P. (2013, June). Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops . Trends in Plant Science , 18 , 312–324. 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.03.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mavroudi, E., & Nagel, C. (2016). Global migration: Patterns, processes, and politics . Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3sVJDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Global+Migration:+Patterns,+processes,+and+politics+‐+Elizabeth+Mavroudi,+Caroline+Nagel+&ots=NNcri‐nJrJ&sig=0OVrtF18ThkB9g1HHGGnnasE‐ho
• Melchers, L. S., & Stuiver, M. H. (2000, April 1). Novel genes for disease‐resistance breeding . Current Opinion in Plant Biology , 3 , 147–152. 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00055-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer, K. L., & Wainwright, J. D. (2008). Gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces in Mexico: An analysis . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 123 ( 1–3 ), 109–115. 10.1016/j.agee.2007.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myhr, A. I. (2009). The role of precautionary motivated science in addressing scientific uncertainties related to GMOS. In Traavik T. & Lim L. C. (Eds.), Biosafety first – Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (pp. 279–287). Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakayama, T. J., Borém, A., Chiari, L., Molinari, H. B. C., & Nepomuceno, A. L. (2014). Precision genetic engineering. In Borém A. & Fritsche‐Neto R. (Eds.), Omics in plant breeding (Vol. 9781118820995 , pp. 187–205). John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118820971.ch10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nidhi, S., Anand, U., Oleksak, P., Tripathi, P., Lal, J. A., Thomas, G., & Tripathi, V. (2021, April 1). Novel crispr–cas systems: An updated review of the current achievements, applications, and future research perspectives . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 22 , 1–42. 10.3390/ijms22073327 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen, K. M., & Myhr, A. I. (2007). Understanding the uncertainties arising from technological interventions in complex biological systems: The case of GMOs. (pp. 107–122). In Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz‐Garcia, S., Ezcurra, E., Schoel, B., Acevedo, F., Soberón, J., & Snow, A. A. (2005). Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004) . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 102 ( 35 ), 12338–12343. 10.1073/pnas.0503356102 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parrott, W. (2010, November 30). Genetically modified myths and realities . New Biotechnology , 27 , 545–551. 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.05.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter, R., Mojca, J., & Primož, P. (2011). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) . In Encyclopedia of environmental health (pp. 879–888). 10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00481-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polansek, T. (2021). U.S. says Mexico plan to ban GMO corn imports does not apply to animal feed | Reuters . Reuters . Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐usa‐corn‐mexico‐idUSKBN2BI32G [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu, G. (2019). Agrifood Economics and Sustainable Development in Contemporary Society (G. Popescu, Ed.). 10.4018/978-1-5225-5739-5 [ CrossRef ]
• Quist, D., & Chapela, I. H. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico . Nature , 414 , 541–543. 10.1038/35107068 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radman, M., Taddei, F., & Matic, I. (2000, March 1). Evolution‐driving genes . Research in Microbiology , 151 , 91–95. 10.1016/S0923-2508(00)00122-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050 . PLoS One , 8 , e66428. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ringler, C., Zhu, T., & Cai, X. (2010). Climate change impacts on food security in Sub‐Saharan Africa: Insights from comprehensive climate change scenarios The water‐energy‐food nexus: Global, basin and local case studies of resource use efficiency under growing natural resource scarcity View project . Retrieved from , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237137914 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez‐León, S., Gil‐Humanes, J., Ozuna, C. V., Giménez, M. J., Sousa, C., Voytas, D. F., & Barro, F. (2018). Low‐gluten, nontransgenic wheat engineered with CRISPR/Cas9 . Plant Biotechnology Journal , 16 ( 4 ), 902–910. 10.1111/pbi.12837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schjerling, P. (2005). The basics of gene doping. In Tamburrini C. & Tännsjö T. (Eds.), Genetic technology and sport: Ethical questions (pp. 19–31). Tylor and Francis Group. 10.4324/9780203481646 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin, H. Y., Wang, C., Lee, H. K., Yoo, K. H., Zeng, X., Kuhns, T., & Hennighausen, L. (2017). CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome . Nature Communications , 8 ( 1 ), 1–10. 10.1038/ncomms15464 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., & Jain, R. K. (2006, August 26). Genetically modified crops: Success, safety assessment, and public concern . Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology , 71 , 598–607. 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smulders, M. J. M., & Arens, P. (2018). New developments in molecular techniques for breeding in ornamentals. In Van Huylenbroeck J. (Ed.), Handbook of Plant Breeding (Vol. 11 , pp. 213–230). Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-90698-0_9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smyth, S. J., & Phillips, P. W. B. (2014). Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops . GM Crops & Food , 5 ( 3 ), 170–177. 10.4161/21645698.2014.945880 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart, C. N., Halfhill, M. D., & Warwick, S. I. (2003, October 1). Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives . Nature Reviews Genetics , 4 , 806–817. 10.1038/nrg1179 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tagliabue, G. (2015, September 8). The nonsensical GMO pseudo‐category and a precautionary rabbit hole . Nature Biotechnology , 33 , 907–908. 10.1038/nbt.3333 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tatsis, E. C., & O’Connor, S. E. (2016, December 1). New developments in engineering plant metabolic pathways . Current Opinion in Biotechnology , 42 , 126–132. 10.1016/j.copbio.2016.04.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulukapi, K. & Ayse, N. G. (2015). Developments of gamma ray application on mutation breeding studies in recent years. International Conference on Advances in Agricultural, Biological & Environmental Sciences (AABES‐2015) July 22‐23, 2015 . London, UK. 10.15242/iicbe.c0715044 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• USDA (2020). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US . Retrieved June 5, 2021, from website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/adoption‐of‐genetically‐engineered‐crops‐in‐the‐us.aspxhttps://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/adoption‐of‐genetically‐engineered‐crops‐in‐the‐us.aspx [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Den Eede, G., Aarts, H., Buhk, H. J., Corthier, G., Flint, H. J., Hammes, W., & Wilcks, A. (2004). The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants . Food and Chemical Toxicology , 42 ( 7 ), 1127–1156. 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WB (2021). Population, total ‐ World | Data . Retrieved May 2, 2021, from Population Data website: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=1W [ Google Scholar ]
• Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (2019). The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2019 . Retrieved from http://www.organic‐world.net/yearbook/yearbook‐2019.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Wisniewski, J. P., Frangne, N., Massonneau, A., & Dumas, C. (2002). Between myth and reality: Genetically modified maize, an example of a sizeable scientific controversy . Biochimie , 84 ( 11 ), 1095–1103. 10.1016/S0300-9084(02)00014-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye, X., & Beyer, P. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (β‐carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid‐free) rice endosperm . Science , 287 ( 5451 ), 303–305. 10.1126/science.287.5451.303 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, J. H., & Ho, P. (2005). A developmental risk society? The politics of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in China . International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development , 4 . Retrieved from www.rug.nl/cds [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng, X., Giuliano, G., & Al‐Babili, S. (2020, November 1). Carotenoid biofortification in crop plants: Citius, altius, fortius . Biochimica et Bssiophysica Acta – Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids , 1865 . 10.1016/j.bbalip.2020.158664 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Did you hear the story about the GMO that nearly destroyed the world?

Once upon a time, way back in 1990, a German company modified the genetics of a bacterium so it could efficiently ferment plant waste, turning the material into ethanol. There was, the story goes, just one problem: the bacteria, Klebsiella planticola, “almost killed the world with booze,” according to an article on Cracked.

Earth Island Journal took a less sarcastic tack, quoting retired genetics professor and now environmental activist David Suzuki:

Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. “The genetically engineered Klebsiella,” he says, “could have ended all plant life on this continent. The implications of this single case are nothing short of terrifying.”

Read the GLP’s profile of David Suzuki here .

This story has become an occasionally arising myth, with articles that appear every few years bolstering anti-GMO activists’ views that anything transgenic or otherwise modified is at least bad for your health, bad for the environment, or perhaps fatal.

Now, in the wake of a new federal law mandating labeling food containing GMOs, the myth has returned.

According to an Op-Ed in Truth-Out.com , which expressed disappointment in the new law as well as shock at the discovery of unapproved GM wheat in a Washington field, these two events illustrated the hazards of genetic modification. According to the Truth-Out writers, these events:

Should set off some alarm bells, because we’ve dodged a similar bullet before with Klebsiella planticola, a soil bacteria that aggressively grows on plants’ roots. In the early 1990s, a European genetic engineering company was preparing to field test its genetically modified version of Klebsiella planticola, which it had tested in the lab and presumed to be safe. But if it weren’t for the work of a team of independent scientists led by Dr. Elaine Ingham, that company could have literally killed every terrestrial plant on the planet.

A turn of events

So, what did happen? Scientists and engineers have been spending decades looking at new ways to handle plant waste, which can become rich material for soil amendments, or can be fermented into other chemicals, including ethanol, and turned into biofuels. In fact, the Klebsiella planticola bacterium (which is now called Raoultella planticola after scientists re-examined the members of Klebsiella ), has been studied for its ability to create ethanol from decaying plant material.

As the story goes, a German company received U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permission to conduct field trials on the amended bacterium, called SDF20, which had a plasmid (a short loop of DNA) inserted into its genome. This plasmid contained a gene for an enzyme, pyruvate decarboxylase that allowed SDF20 to ferment plant waste to ethanol.

This trial caught the attention of Elaine Ingham, a Green Party member who was then a scientist on the faculty of Oregon State University. In testimony to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering, Ingham said her graduate student, Michael Holmes, “discovered that the engineered bacterium, Klebsiella planticola , with an additional alcohol gene, killed all the wheat plants in microcosms into which the engineered organisms were added.”

The engineered bacterium produces far beyond the required amount of alcohol per gram soil than required to kill any terrestrial plant. This could have been the single most devastating impact on human beings since we should likely have lost corn, wheat, barley, vegetable crops, trees, bushes, etc., conceivably all terrestrial plants.

To back this up, she cited a paper co-written with Holmes, published in 1999 in Applied Soil Ecology. The news of this was picked up the Green Party members of the European Parliament, and a number of other activists who touted how the discovery underscored the grave planetary danger of GMOs.

The Greens rescue world from GMOs?

According to a very recent article in Organics.org, the Green Party activists and scientists saved us all in the nick of time:

This new miracle GMO had all the necessary approvals to be commercialized and it was going to be. However, a team of independent scientists led by Dr. Elaine Ingham remained skeptical and luckily so. They discovered after some testing what the bacteria is actually capable of doing and after exposing the results the gene-altered bacteria was never commercialized. If not for their efforts, there is no doubt that this would have ended the world.

Scientists call shenanigans on GMO doomsday plant

But problems with her and Holmes’ story began. In a rebuttal to Ingham’s testimony, Christian Walter, with Forest Research Institute in Rotorua, New Zealand, Michael Berridge, of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, and David Tribe, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote that:

• The paper she and Holmes wrote with their results actually doesn’t exist (the volume and page numbers were false, and no other citation can be found).
• Another paper, also by Holmes, Ingham and other colleagues, was cited later (after the rebuttal was published), but this paper reviewed the growth of spring wheat in poor, sandy soil that had been inoculated with the SDF20 strain of K. planticola . Not anything resembling grounds for worldwide plant Armageddon.
• There was no evidence from the EPA or the US Department of Agriculture that any field trials for SDF20 were ever approved .
• The SDF20 produced about 20 micrograms per milliliter of alcohol in the soil. “This concentration is several hundred times lower than that required to affect plant growth (10 milligrams per milliliter),” they wrote.

The scientists concluded then , that:

Dr Ingham’s assertions have been published widely on the Internet and elsewhere. However, we have been unable to find any evidence that Dr Ingham has submitted her assertions about threats to terrestrial plant life to scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our own literature search and resulting evidence further demonstrates that natural alcohol producing varieties of Klebsiella planticola already exist, and are routinely found in nature; however, no adverse consequences of this alcohol production on any organisms including plants have been observed.

In fact, the studies on K. planticola ( R. planticola today), showed that the new strain could not survive in poor soil, which probably wrote a death sentence not for the world, but for the commercial viability of a modified form of R. planticola .

As for Dr. Ingham, who went from Oregon State to the Rodale Institute and now runs a soil management consulting company called SoilFoodWeb, she and the Green Party apologized to the New Zealand Royal Commission:

The Green Party incorrectly cited a paper that is has since discovered…does not exist. There are no records indicating that field testing approval was ever given. The Green Party would like to request that the commission disregard the final sentence in paragraph 30, recognize that this statement goes beyond the published literature. (This was Ingham’s assertion that SDF20 would kill all plant life on earth).

In her apology, Ingham said :

I was incorrect in stating that the specifically genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola I was talking about had been approved for field trials and was going to be released. I would like to make clear that the possibility of destruction of terrestrial plants that I referred to as an outcome of releasing this organism is an extrapolation from the laboratory evidence. It is one possible scenario. There are other possible scenarios which could occur; we need more data to be able to make a clear judgement on the most likely outcome.

Any data would have been nice. And today, we still have plants. And GMOs. And alcohol.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer and editor, and has worked with numerous academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. BIO . Follow him on Twitter @AMPorterfield

This article originally ran on the GLP August 11, 2017.

GLP Podcasts & Podcast Videos More...

GLP podcast: Oops — heirloom seed company markets GM tomato; Anti-biotech movement in retreat; Bill Gates does more harm than good?

Glp podcast: aap refuses to print rebuttal to anti-gmo study; billion-dollar anti-pesticide ‘money grab’; ultra-processed food won’t make you obese, videos more....

Video: Why does love make us feel so good? Examining its effect on our brains

Bees & pollinators more....

Dissecting claims about Monsanto suing farmers for accidentally planting patented seeds

Analysis: Do neonicotinoid and glyphosate pesticides threaten bees? A reassessment

How effective and safe are current-generation pesticides?

Infographics more....

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

Gmo faqs more....

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most popular.

Newsletter Subscription

• Weekly Newsletter (Wed)
• Daily Digest (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri)
• Weekly Top Six (Sun)
• Featured Articles Only
• Human Articles Only
• Agriculture Articles Only
• All Types of Content

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.